HKSAR v. CHEUNG TSZ PONG

HCCC 371/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 371 OF 2025

-----------------

------------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty on 20 October 2025 to two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, he confirms his pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts.

The particulars of the offences are as follows. On 26 January 2024, at a staircase between the 2nd and 3rd Floor of No. 2 Foo Yuen Street, Kowloon, he unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 230 grammes of a mixture containing 192 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (1st Count).

On the same day, in the same building, but at a subdivided premises, Flat 6, Room 31, 3rd Floor of the same building, the defendant unlawfully trafficked in 1,650.02 grammes of a mixture containing 1,268.88 grammes of heroin hydrochloride (2nd Count).

The facts are straightforward. The defendant was seen on the 3rd Floor walking towards the staircase to head downstairs and was intercepted by the police. His bag was searched and the drugs of 1st Count was found inside.

Under caution, the defendant admitted he owed money and had no choice but to deliver the bag of heroin to a park as directed. This was to earn money to repay his debt. He would earn $3,000 for every delivery made.

Keys were found on his person and they opened a subdivided flat on the 3rd Floor. In that subdivided flat, the police found the drugs of 2^nd Count in a total of 11 plastic bags. The police also found paraphernalia associated with weighing and packaging drugs such as an electronic scale, bowls, spoons, and transparent resealable plastic bags. Under caution, he admitted he was tasked to store the heroin in the premises and to pack and deliver as directed by his boss.

He admits that the total estimated street value of the heroin seized was HK$1,404,375 and he was in possession for the purposes of trafficking.

Mitigation

The defendant is now 37 years old and married with one child. At the time of his arrest, he was living alone. The defendant had a clear record. Mr Wong has said all he can possibly say on behalf of the defendant in mitigation. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.

In mitigation, Mr Wong has stressed his previous clear record, his role. He was not a mastermind but just a courier. And I have been told he had tried to help the police but could not provide any information of any practical value or use.

Sentencing

I have considered the approach to sentencing those that traffic in dangerous drugs. With the Court of Appeal’s guidance and the most recent authority HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho [2024] HKCA 150, I now consider the six steps as set out in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph [2021] 1 HKLRD 290.

In the approach to sentencing, a number of steps have been identified which the court should take, such as assessing the gravity of the offence and applicable guideline, identifying the defendant’s role, where within the guideline the defendant should lie, whether there are any aggravating factors, any mitigating factors, and lastly, passing a sentence which is fair, just, and balanced in all of the circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

The first step is to assess the gravity of the offence and identify the applicable guideline according to the drug seized. There are two counts here, but the facts allow me to take a global approach and combine the total of the heroin from both counts together for the purposes of sentencing.

Sentencing guidelines for heroin is now found in the most recent authority of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang [2025] HKCA 234. The starting point for trafficking in heroin between 500 to 1,500 grammes is 16 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Mathematically speaking, trafficking in a total of 1,460.88 grammes of heroin hydrochloride will attract a starting point of 19 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

I have considered the evidence and the facts and find no real evidence to suggest he was anything more than a storekeeper and courier. I find the mathematical starting point of 19 years and 9 months’ imprisonment appropriate in this case.

The fourth and fifth steps require me to consider whether there are any aggravating factors or any exceptional mitigating factors. I see no such factors in this case.

You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and you are entitled to a full one-third discount. I will take the starting point of 19 years and 9 months’ imprisonment and reduce it by one-third. You are sentenced to 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

With the last step of the six steps in mind, I consider the sentence, although substantial, to be fair, just, and balanced in the light of the circumstances of these offences as well as the defendant.

Therefore, for 1st Count, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. For 2nd Count, the defendant is sentenced to 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

I will order both sentences to be served concurrently. Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 13 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.